End grain planing - 5 minute experiment

your missing part

Dennis

>So far your test is correct, now plane the "face" side with each and compare that. You just might be surprized.

Dennis,who is going to sit back and watch the opinion's fly

remove nospam for email

Re: your missing part

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Dennis

No missing part. That is, this experiment was not intended to plane - or experiences the effects of planing - face grain. It was only to determine the effect on end grain.

I fully expect the results to be reversed on increasing difficult-grained timbers. This has been the subject of many articles by Lyn (not to mention my own review of the LA Jack planes a while back).

I might also note for the record, the pine used above was the same piece for both planes. The blades was the same blade. The only difference was the cutting angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: your missing part

Dennis

>And i agree with you, my only point was for those that seem to not understand that low angle is for end grain and high if for other.

A lot depends on what wood your working on for sure, but the bottom line is the same, and for my money the stanley65 will handle any end grain if you only try to take a fine cut.

Dennis,who spent the morning working with mahogany and wonders why we even use other woods at times.

remove nospam for email

Re: your missing part

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>As I look at what has been presented, Derek has demonstrated that for that particular wood, the 37 degree effective cutting angle resulted in a superior surface compared to the 45 degree effective cutting angle. It is quite likely, but not proven by this experiment, that other woods will show similar results when the same type of cuts are made.

Frankly, there is not apt to be a lot of difference on face grain between the two effective cutting angles with most straight grained woods. Highly figured woods will almost surely respond better to higher effective cutting angles, and highly spalted woods, even with face grain presented, will likely respond better with the lower effective cutting angle.

The key here is that Derek has illustrated the superiority of the lower effective cutting angle on this wood and that the 37 degree effective cutting angle is readily achievable in a controled fashion with the Low Bedding Angle plane, while higher effective cutting angles, when needed, can easily be achieved by applying higher bevel angles.

With the Standard (High) Bedding Angle plane, you can achieve lower effective cutting angles by skewing the blade or the plane, but you lose the controled determination of the angle, and with a skewed plane, you can not plane closely up against an edge. These drawbacks may or may not be meaningful in a particular situation or to a particular woodworker, but overall, Derek has demonstrated the utility of low effective cutting angles in some situations and what follows is that the Low Bedding Angle plane offers a greater range of utility/performance over the Standard (high) Bedding Angle block plane.